Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, C 13-05671 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171129923
Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART GUERRERO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On October 17, defendant State Personnel Board submitted a bill of costs seeking a total of $13,203.70 incurred in defending this action (Dkt. No. 389-1). Plaintiff Victor Guerrero opposed on the grounds that paying these costs would be a hardship for him due to his limited financial resources, and awarding costs would discourage future meritorious employment discrimination suits. Guerrero al
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART GUERRERO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On October 17, defendant State Personnel Board submitted a bill of costs seeking a total of $13,203.70 incurred in defending this action (Dkt. No. 389-1). Plaintiff Victor Guerrero opposed on the grounds that paying these costs would be a hardship for him due to his limited financial resources, and awarding costs would discourage future meritorious employment discrimination suits. Guerrero als..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART GUERRERO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
On October 17, defendant State Personnel Board submitted a bill of costs seeking a total of $13,203.70 incurred in defending this action (Dkt. No. 389-1). Plaintiff Victor Guerrero opposed on the grounds that paying these costs would be a hardship for him due to his limited financial resources, and awarding costs would discourage future meritorious employment discrimination suits. Guerrero also objected to certain costs on the separate ground that they are not taxable (Dkt. No. 391).
With leave of Court, SPB responded to Guerrero's motion, raising issues regarding Guerrero's ability to pay costs as well as the appropriateness of certain individual costs (Dkt. No. 394). Guerrero now seeks leave to file a reply. SPB opposes, and in the alternative asks that if Guerrero is permitted to reply, SPB be permitted to file a surreply.
Having considered the parties' arguments, Guerrero's motion for leave to file a reply is GRANTED only insofar as it responds to newly-raised issues regarding Guerrero's ability to pay costs. The Court will consider only those portions of the brief submitted in connection with his motion for leave to file a reply. His motion is otherwise DENIED. SPB's motion for leave to file a surreply is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
